Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.
The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.
The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination. Drafters of the 1994 treaty included the provision to protect U.S. and Canadian investors against corruption in Mexican courts.
Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret.
The CCPA believes the federal government’s strong commitment to Chapter 11 and its willingness to settle and compensate claimants is encouraging more cases against Canada. There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23.
The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.
Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.
Even when countries win the legal costs of fighting an investor claim, it can cost millions of dollars. Sinclair estimates Canada has spent $65 million defending such claims over the past two decades.
About 63 per cent of the claims against Canada involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management programs that allegedly interfere with the profits of foreign investors.
The government has lost some of these environmental challenges and has been forced to overturn legislation protecting the environment.
In 1997, the Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical company, used chapter 11 to challenge a Canadian ban on the import of MMT, a gasoline additive that is a suspected neurotoxin and which automakers have said interferes with cars’ diagnostic systems. The company won damages of $15 million and the government was forced to remove the policy.
A year later, U.S.-based S.D. Myers challenged Canada’s temporary ban on the export of toxic PCP waste, which was applied equally to all companies. Canada argued it was obliged to dispose of the waste within its own borders under another international treaty. However, the tribunal ruled the ban was discriminatory and violated NAFTA’s standards for fair treatment.
There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.
Many of those current challenges involve domestic environmental protections such as the promotion of renewable energies, a moratorium on offshore wind projects on Lake Ontario and Nova Scotia’s decision to block a contentious mega-quarry.
In one case, a Calgary headquartered company that is registered in the U.S., Lone Pine Resources Inc., is suing the Canadian government for $250 million over Quebec’s moratorium on natural gas fracking, which applies equally to foreign and domestic companies. Lone Pine argues it was not consulted before the ban nor compensated for its wasted investment or loss of potential revenue.
Sinclair argues that the threat of challenges under chapter 11 has a chilling effect on public interest regulation, which will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.
“Buoyed by their past successes, foreign investors and their legal advisors are now turning to NAFTA chapter 11 with increasing frequency and assertiveness,” he wrote.
“Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada.”
Canada is embarking on a new generation of multinational treaties such as the European Union free trade deal and the Trans Pacific Partnership, both of which contain investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems. While governments can be sued under ISDS, there is no similar recourse for states to hold foreign investors, often wealthy corporations, accountable for their actions.
Case: Ethyl Corp. (1997)
Amount awarded: US$13 million, out-of-court settlement.
What happened: The U.S. chemical company challenged a Canada-wide ban on import and trade of the gasoline additive MMT, a suspected neurotoxin. Following a preliminary judgement against Canada, the government repealed the ban, issued an apology and paid a settlement.
2. Case: S.D. Meyers (1998)
Amount awarded: CDN$6.05 million, plus interest and compensation.
What happened: The U.S. waste disposal firm challenged a temporary Canadian ban on the export of toxic PCB wastes, something the country was obliged to do under an international environmental treaty. The tribunal ruled that Canada violated standards of treatment under NAFTA.
3.Pope and Talbot (1998)
Amount awarded: CDN$870,000.
What happened: The U.S. lumber company challenged Canada’s lumber export rules implemented under the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The tribunal ruled Canada violated NAFTA’s minimum standards of treatment.
4. Mobil Investments/Murphy Oil (2007)
Amount awarded: Not yet determined, but damages continue to accrue as long as violating guideline in effect.
What happened: The oil investors argued that Canada’s guidelines requiring energy companies to invest in research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador are inconsistent with NAFTA rules. The tribunal ruled in favour of the investors and Canada is liable to pay damages.
5. AbitibiBowater (2009)
Amount awarded: CDN$130 million in settlement — the largest NAFTA-related settlement to date.
What happened: The pulp and paper company closed its last mill in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2008 and the provincial government enacted legislation to return its timber and water rights to the Crown and expropriate some of its lands and assets associated with water and hydroelectric rights. Abitibi was to be paid fair market value for the assets.The company launched a NAFTA claim and the government decided to settle without going to court.
6. St. Marys (2011)
Amount awarded: $15 million.
What happened: The company alleges its Canadian subsidiary was the victim of political interference when it tried to open a quarry near Hamilton, Ont., after residents grew concerned about the groundwater. The provincial government issued a zoning order preventing the site from being converted into a quarry and the company claimed that was unfair and discriminatory. The parties reached a settlement in 2013 that saw the company withdraw the claim in exchange for compensation from the Ontario government.
Also on HuffPost:
Canada’s new copyright laws, passed last fall, cap the liability for unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material at $5,000, so long as the downloading is not for commercial purposes. But the TPP could force Canada to institute criminal penalties even for small-time downloaders, according to a number of consumer advocacy groups. Canada’s top negotiator at the talks last fall refused to say whether Canada would fight for its new copyright laws in the TPP deal.
An umbrella group of U.S. media companies has been lobbying the U.S. Trade Representative to pressure Canada into repealing Canadian content rules as part of the TPP. That has raised significant concerns among music and film and TV groups that Canada’s cultural industries could be threatened by the TPP.
Article 16 of a leaked 2011 draft of the TPP mandates that countries create “legal incentives” for internet service providers to do their own copyright policing online. That is interpreted by many to mean that ISPs could be held legally accountable if their subscribers download illegally. Consumer groups fear this will mean expanded monitoring of web users’ online habits, and the possibility of three-strikes-and-you’re-out rules that would cut off internet services to subscribers alleged to have engaged in unauthorized downloading.
U.S. House Rep. Alan Grayson, who rose to fame four years ago with his quip that the Republican health care plan amounts to hoping you “die quickly,” was recently allowed to see a draft copy of the TPP. While he’s been banned from divulging any details, the populist Florida Democrat described it in a recent blog post as an agreement that “hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.” He told HuffPost: "Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty … And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!" He added on his blog: “There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.”
While politicians like Grayson have to keep quiet in public about what they’ve seen, a “consultation group” likely composed of lobbyists has had access to the talks through the Canadian delegation, critics say. OpenMedia reported it received a non-disclosure agreement the group said was mistakenly sent to them, and was apparently meant for industry insiders. “It appears ... the Canadian government got confused about which contacts were industry lobbyists and which are from public interest groups,” OpenMedia stated. The Harper government had previously denied that such a group existed.
This might not be something the Harper government wants to keep from the public, which is largely unhappy with the state of telecom in Canada, but it could be something it’s trying to keep out of sight of Canada’s telecom companies. The U.S. Trade Representative recently criticized Canada’s protectionist telecom policies, along with policies in a number of other countries negotiating the TPP. That has led some to conclude Canada will come under pressure to relax restrictions on foreign ownership of telecoms. The Tories have previously loosened foreign ownership rules in order to spur competition in the wireless market, so there is a good chance they will be receptive to further liberalization of telecom regulations.
One of the clauses being debated in the TPP would allow corporations to decide themselves whether internet browsers can make “temporary copies” to your computer’s history folder. Temporary copies are a basic element of how web browsers work (it's what they use to remember your browsing history). Critics say allowing companies to control what is and isn’t copied could harm the ability of search engines to become more sophisticated. It could also have a chilling effect on tech innovation, as it could halt the development of apps that, for example, use a picture of a book cover or a part of a song to identify that book or song.
Canada was reportedly kept out of TPP negotiations at first because of its supply management system, which controls the price of some basic grocery goods like milk and eggs. Canada’s acceptance into the talks has been interpreted by some as meaning the Tories are willing to put the supply management system on the table. (The Tories have already ended the Wheat Board’s monopoly.) Many Canadians would like to see the end of the “milk and eggs monopoly,” and supporters of change say freeing up the market would result in lower prices. Supporters of the current system say there is no reason to believe prices will go down without supply management, and it will make business less stable for farmers.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports the TPP would amount to the most significant expansion of copyright terms in two decades. The group says the TPP proposes to extend copyright on works created by individuals to life plus 70 years. (In Canada, it’s currently life plus 50 years). It would also expand copyright owned by corporations to 95 or 120 years after creation, depending on which proposal is accepted. This would ensure that Mickey Mouse (born 1928) would continue to be owned by Disney and would not become part of the public domain. Critics of lengthy copyright terms argue they are bad for economic development because they restrict innovation.
The U.S. and Australia apparently want tougher rules for “fair use” exceptions from copyright law. Currently, people are allowed to copy parts of textbooks for educational purposes, or quote copyrighted materials in news articles. But a proposed “three-step test” for fair use could make it considerably harder for people to use parts of copyrighted materials in these ways.
Pictured: U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Some U.S. politicians have been pressuring President Barack Obama to open up the TPP talks to greater public scrutiny. The latest is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who sent a letter to the Obama administration earlier this month asking the U.S. Trade Representative to make a copy of the negotiating text available to the public. “Without transparency, the benefit from robust democratic participation — an open marketplace of ideas — is considerably reduced,” she wrote.